Adeniji v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 799
The applicant, a citizen of Nigeria, applied for permanent residence as the spouse of a Protected Person in Canada. An immigration officer refused the application, doubting the genuineness of the relationship based on information that the sponsor had other relationships in Canada.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court held that the applicant's failure to directly address the specific concerns about her spouse's other relationships, despite being given clear opportunities to do so, was a sufficient basis for refusal.
Ashrafi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 800
An Iranian couple sought judicial review after their C11 entrepreneur work permit application to open a hair salon in Alberta was refused. The immigration officer concluded they would not leave Canada and that their business plan failed to show a significant benefit to Canada.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision was unreasonable. The Court held that the officer's conclusions about the business plan and the applicants' family ties were unsupported by the evidence and lacked a rational chain of analysis.
Nader v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 788
A refugee applicant, after multiple appeals and judicial reviews, challenged a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision that sent his case back to the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) for a full redetermination. The applicant argued the RPD should only consider his credibility, as a previous decision had already found him not to be excluded from protection on one ground (Article 1F(b)).
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding it was reasonable for the RAD to order a broad redetermination. The Court clarified that a previous court order dealing with specific issues does not prevent a tribunal from later considering other relevant, but previously unaddressed, issues like different grounds for exclusion (Article 1E).
Nguyen v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 790
The applicant, a Vietnamese citizen, was refused permanent residence under the spousal sponsorship class. The IRCC officer concluded his marriage was not genuine, dismissing letters of support from family as 'biased' and making several unreasonable findings about the couple's photographic and financial evidence.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision was unreasonable. The Court ruled that dismissing evidence, such as letters from family and friends, solely because of its source is a legal error and that the officer's analysis was unintelligible and disconnected from the evidence.
Seyedmahmood Kia v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 780
The Applicant sought an order of mandamus to compel a decision on his study permit application for a PhD program, which had been processing for over two and a half years. The excessive delay jeopardized his admission, as he had already deferred his program three times.
The Federal Court granted the mandamus order, finding the delay unreasonable and unjustified. The Court ordered the Minister to render a decision on the application within 30 days and awarded costs to the Applicant due to the Respondent's conduct.
Fahs v. Canada (Immigration and Citizenship), 2026 FC 782
The applicant, a protected person from Lebanon, had his refugee status revoked after visiting his home country five times. The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) concluded he had reavailed himself of Lebanon's protection, dismissing his safety precautions because they did not amount to him being 'in hiding'.
The Federal Court allowed the judicial review, finding the RPD applied the wrong legal test. The Court clarified that the correct analysis is not a simple 'was he in hiding?' question, but a comprehensive assessment of all precautionary measures taken by the refugee.
Hovsepian v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 781
The Applicant, a Syrian Convention Refugee, returned to Syria for four years to pursue a legal dispute. During this time, she lived, worked, and married in Syria, leading the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) to rule that she had voluntarily re-established herself and cease her refugee protection.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the RPD's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that the evidence clearly showed the Applicant's actions were inconsistent with a person fearing persecution, thus justifying the cessation of her refugee status.
A self-represented public servant sought judicial review of a decision by the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner, who dismissed her reprisal complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The applicant used artificial intelligence to prepare her legal arguments, which resulted in the submission of numerous non-existent or 'hallucinated' legal cases to the Court.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding the Commissioner's decision reasonable. Crucially, the Court sanctioned the applicant $500 for the abusive use of AI, emphasizing that citing fabricated case law is a serious matter that misleads the Court and undermines the administration of justice.
Sabour v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 783
The Applicant sought an order of mandamus to compel a decision on his temporary resident visa application, filed over three years prior, to visit his two daughters in Canada. IRCC had failed to process the application, which far exceeded its own service standards.
The Federal Court granted the mandamus order, compelling IRCC to issue a decision within 30 days. The Court found the delay of 11-12 times the service standard was unreasonable and that IRCC's justification was neither transparent nor intelligible.
Hwangbo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 771
The applicant, Yun Hwangbo, was found inadmissible for misrepresentation after failing to disclose a criminal charge on her work permit application. The officer imposed a five-year ban. Ms. Hwangbo argued this was due to her former immigration consultant's incompetent advice.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding a breach of natural justice due to the ineffective assistance of counsel. The Court found the former counsel's failure to advise the applicant to update her file after learning of the charge fell below the standard of reasonable professional assistance, and this failure prejudiced the outcome of her application.
